|
| If stopping the viral replication is the answer then focusing on vaccines is the correct approach for a non mutating virus, like polio, but it is the wrong approach to take for a rapidly mutating virus like a coronavirus. With a coronavirus the vaccine will always be behind for the exact reason I listed.
Yes, there will be less variants out there, but there will always be variants out there. That means that when a new variant presents itself the only way to prevent its spread and consequently new variants is by hiding from it again until we all get a new, improved booster shot.
The better alternative is to try to find some form of treatment that stops viral replication after you contract the virus. That will have the same effect of reducing the number of new variants that emerge because of the reduced viral replication. The benefit of this approach is that it will be effective even against variants so we don’t need to continue to produce new treatments. We also do not need to take any medications unless we are actually sick. It would also allow every hospital in the country to have the drugs on hand so that immediate treatment is possible. With the vaccine, we are still going to have deaths caused by the variants until an effective vaccine stops it.
There are some promising drugs out there that have had very good results. A very promising one is dirt cheap but it’s patent has long expired. It’s called ivermectin.
This situation is just like the religion/atheist argument. No one here, on either side, has proof of anything with this virus. We all read various things and from that develop a personal belief of what the truth is.
To that effect, I propose that we don’t rule based on some belief just because we read it somewhere. We need to allow the truth to be discovered through science and we can not stifle alternatives due to simple beliefs. So I support a way forward where those that want a vaccine can get one and those that want to use antiviral medications afterwards can do so too. Freedom of choice. There is science to support both sides and to not want that choice is effectively turning science into a religion by arguing that “my science is right, yours is wrong”.
Would you support a situation where both the vaccine and drugs like ivermectin are readily available and it’s a personal choice which approach a person chooses? | |
|
Case IH farmer
